coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Krasnodar.
6.  On 26 January 2004 the applicant was charged with murder. He was assisted by legal counsel and pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of manslaughter. On 5 August 2004 the Novokubansk District Court of Krasnodar Region convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment.
7.  On 14 August 2004 the applicant and his counsel submitted their statements of appeal in which they requested the appeal court to reclassify the offence as manslaughter and challenged the findings of fact made by the trial court.
8.  On 15 September 2004 the appeal hearing was adjourned as the applicant and his lawyer had not been notified of the appeal hearing fourteen days in advance.
9.  The Government produced a typed summons issued by the Krasnodar Regional Court on 22 September 2004, by which the applicant and his counsel were to be informed of the appeal hearing scheduled for 6 October 2004. According to the Government, a copy of this summons was sent to the lawyer’s address.
10.  On 6 October 2004 the Krasnodar Regional Court upheld the judgment of 5 August 2004. A representative of the prosecution and the applicant, but not his counsel, attended the appeal hearing.
4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Bosilegrad.
5.  The applicant was employed by HKP Yumco a.d., a socially/State-owned company based in Vranje (hereinafter – “the debtor”).
6.  On 12 February 2007 the Bosilegrad Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay her:
(a)  salary arrears in the amount of 70,387.12 Serbian dinars (RSD),[1] plus statutory interest; and
(b)  RSD 5,517 (approximately EUR 70) for her legal costs.
7.  On 2 March 2007 the judgment became final.
8.  On 13 February 2008 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Vranje Municipal Court, proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank transfer.
9.  On 14 February 2008 the court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.
10.  On 16 April 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
11.  On 26 December 2012 the Constitutional Court held that the applicant’s “right to trial within reasonable time” was violated and ordered the Vranje Municipal Court and National Bank of Serbia to enforce the final judgment as soon as possible.
12.  On 28 April 2007 the Bosilegrad Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay her:
(a)  salary arrears in the amount of RSD 78,712 (aproximatelly EUR 990), plus statutory interest;
(b) employee meal benefits (naknada za ishranu na radu) in the amount of RSD 51,715.68 (approximately EUR 650), plus statutory interest;
(b)  RSD 14,360 (approximately EUR 185) for her legal costs; and
(c)  the pension, disability, and health contributions due for the period 1 January 2004 to 8 February 2005.
13.  On 13 December 2007 the judgment became final.
14.  On 13 February 2008 the applicant filed a request for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Vranje Municipal Court, proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank transfer.
15.  On 15 April 2008 the court accepted the applicant’s request and issued an enforcement order.
16.  On 16 April 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
17.  According to information in the file the case is still pending before the Constitutional Court
4.  The applicant and Beogradski Pamučni Kombat, a company based in Belgrade (hereinafter: “the debtor”) concluded a contract on 7 March 2000. The debtor failed to fulfil its obligations arising from the contract.
5.  On 11 December 2001 the Commercial Court in Belgrade instituted insolvency proceedings against the debtor. This decision was published on the court’s notice board on 19 December 2001.
6.  On 12 March 2002 the applicant lodged its pecuniary claim within the insolvency proceedings.
7.  As its claim had been disputed, on 11 October 2002 the applicant filed a separate civil suit before the Commercial Court in Belgrade and requested the determination of its claim.
8.  On 2 September 2004 the Commercial Court in Belgrade determined one part of the applicant’s claim and ordered the debtor to pay the applicant 6,686.15 euros (EUR).
9.  On an unspecified date thereafter this judgment became final.
10.  On 4 April 2005 the Commercial Court determined the reminder of the applicant’s claim and ordered the debtor to pay the applicant EUR 11,409 as well as 80,500 Serbian dinars in respect of the costs of civil proceedings.
11.  This judgment became final on 9 June 2005.
12.  On 30 September 2009 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the judgment of 4 April 2005 in respect of the costs awarded. On the same day the Commercial Court in Belgrade allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
13.  The judgment of 2 September 2004 and the reminder of the judgment of 4 April 2005 were to be enforced in the context of the insolvency proceedings.
14.  Before the insolvency proceedings the debtor company was predominantly socially owned. It has remained registered as predominantly socially owned in the relevant public registries throughout the insolvency proceedings.
15.  On 18 December 2009 the Commercial Court in Belgrade terminated the insolvency proceedings against the company. This decision became final on 11 January 2011. On 1 June 2011 the debtor was erased from the Companies’ Register.
4.  The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Ravne Na Koroškem.
5.  On 21 December 1992 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Ljubljana Court of Associated Labour (Sodišče združenega dela v Ljubljani) concerning his disability allowances.
6.  Between 17 March 1993 and 28 June 1994 when the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia, the court held three main hearings.
7 Between 21 February 1994 and 16 May 1996 the court sent to the applicant’s employer ten requests to provide information on the calculation of the allowances that the applicant had been receiving.
8.  On 12 November 1996 the court held a main hearing and requested the defendant’s auditor to establish, on the basis of documentation, the information that the applicant’s employer had failed to submit.
9.  At the hearing on 17 October 1997 the court established that the defendant’s auditor failed to fulfill the task delegated by the court and decided to appoint an expert on finance.
11.  On 10 October 1998 the (renamed) Ljubljana Labour and Social Court (Delovno in socialno sodišče v Ljubljani) held a hearing and issued its decision, dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
12.  On 11 November 1999 the Higher Labour and Social Court granted the applicant’s appeal and remitted the case back to the first instance court.
13.  After three hearings had been held between 22 March 2001 and 3 September 2002 the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court issued its decision, dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
14.  On 22 August 2005 and 22 September 2005 the applicant urged the Higher Labour and Social Court to issue a decision.
15.  On 24 November 2005 the Higher Labour and Social Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
16.  On 2 October 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
17.  On 22 January 2008 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal. The decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 30 January 2008.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Ljubljana.
5.  On 5 May 1986 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against six defendants before the Ljubljana Basic Court claiming non-pecuniary damages for defamation.
6.  By 28 June 1994 when the Convention came into force in respect of Slovenia, the court had scheduled eight main hearings which were all adjourned.
7.  A hearing was scheduled for 19 September 1994 but was adjourned after the applicant had on 15 September 1994 lodged a motion for the referral of the matter to a Labour and social Court.
8.  On 19 September 1994 the applicant’s motion was dismissed.
9.  By 17 September 1998 when the Ljubljana District Court held a main hearing further four scheduled hearings had been postponed, one at the request of the applicant. On the latter date the court issued its decision, granting the applicant’s claim. The defendants appealed.
10.  On 29 March 2000 the Ljubljana Higher Court upheld the appeal and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
11.  On 8 March 2001 the Supreme Court granted the applicant’s appeal on points of law and remitted the case back to the second instance court which on 21 June 2002 issued a decision to remit the case back to the first instance court.
12.  On 29 November 2002 the applicant requested that a scheduled main hearing be postponed due to health reasons.
13.  The hearing scheduled for 10 March 2003 was postponed after the applicant had on 6 March 2003 lodged a motion for suspension of the presiding judge, a motion to have disciplinary proceedings instituted against the judge, a motion to have the presiding judge excluded and a motion to transfer the case to another court.
14.  On 23 April 2003 the Ljubljana District Court imposed a fine on the applicant for abusing procedural rights and for contempt of court.
15.  On 25 May 2004 the applicant made a motion to have the case transferred to another court. On 24 June 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the motion.
16.  On 31 May 2004 a main hearing was held. The applicant did not appear at the hearing.
17.  On 11 November 2004 the court held a main hearing and issued its decision, dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed.
18.  On 15 June 2006 the Ljubljana Higher Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
19.  On 9 October 2008 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
20.  On 3 November 2010 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal. The decision was served on the applicant on 6 November 2010.
5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Akademija, Kaunas Region.
6.  In 1994 a local authority assigned a plot of land of 0.5 hectares to the applicant. On 6 August 1996 the Kaunas Region Administration confirmed the sale of the land to the applicant.
7.  By an agreement of 24 September 1996 she acquired the plot of land from the State for 61 “single-use investment vouchers” (investiciniai čekiai) and registered it with the Land Registry in her name.
8.  The applicant then grew vegetables on the plot and sold them at the market.
9.  Following a civil claim brought in December 2001 by third parties seeking restoration of ownership rights to that plot, on 2 October 2003 the Kaunas Regional Court, acting as a court of appeal, quashed the authorities’ decision of 6 August 1996 as unlawful, and cancelled the sale of the disputed plot of land, which then had to be returned to the State. It was concluded that the authorities did not have the right to sell that plot of land as the former owners had already in 1991 lodged a request for restoration of their property rights to the nationalised property. It was also decided to remit the case to the first-instance court for the determination of questions of restitution and compensation, as the land-sale agreement had now been declared null and void. On 6 February 2004 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal on points of law as out of time.
10.  After the plot of land was taken from the applicant by the State, it was transferred to the former owners following a decision of 16 September 2005 by the Kaunas Region Administration to restore ownership rights to T.M.K. and J.R.
11.  After the case had been remitted to the first-instance court an independent expert was appointed in the proceedings.
12.  A valuation of the plot was carried out by an independent and certified valuer, which included a comprehensive assessment of the characteristics of that plot of land and estimated its value by comparing market prices.
13.  It was established that the plot’s market value in September 2005 was 112,500 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 32,580 euros (EUR)) while in August 1996 it had amounted to LTL 18,000. Nonetheless, the Kaunas Regional Court, acting as a court of first instance, on 5 October 2006 decided to award the applicant LTL 1,466 (approximately EUR 430), noting that that price corresponded to the sum the applicant had paid in single-use investment vouchers in 1996.
14.  On 26 February 2007 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court and rejected the applicant’s arguments that Article 6.147 § 2 of the Civil Code had to be applied by awarding the applicant the highest value of the property, as she had been deprived of it because of error by the State authorities.
15.  On 8 May 2007 the Supreme Court refused to accept the applicant’s cassation appeal for examination, on the ground that her appeal raised no important legal issues.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Zagreb.
6.  On 5 October 2006, by a final decision of the Nova Gradiška Social Welfare Centre (Centar za socijalnu skrb Nova Gradiška), the applicant adopted a three-year old child. At that time the applicant was a self-employed businesswoman living in Zagreb.
7.  On 16 October 2006 the applicant submitted a request to the Zagreb office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund (Hrvatski zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje Područni ured u Zagrebu) seeking to establish her right to paid maternity leave.
8.  On 20 October 2006 the Zagreb office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that under the legislation on maternity leave for self-employed entrepreneurs and unemployed mothers (“the Maternity Leave Act”), biological mothers were entitled to paid maternity leave only until the child’s first birthday, and adoptive mothers had to be treated equally.
9.  The applicant lodged an appeal with the central office (Direkcija) of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund against the first-instance decision. She complained that she had been discriminated against as an adoptive mother and a self-employed businesswoman. She relied on the Labour Act, which provided that the adoptive parent of a child under the age of twelve was entitled to paid leave of 270 days, starting from the date of adoption.
10.  On 21 March 2007 the central office of the Croatian Health Insurance Fund dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the grounds that the Maternity Leave Act had to be applied in the applicant’s case as a lex specialis. That Act did not provide for maternity leave to be granted to either a biological or an adoptive mother if the child was older than one year.
11.  On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske), challenging the administrative bodies’ decisions.
12.  On 26 November 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the grounds that the administrative bodies had correctly applied the Maternity Leave Act as a lex specialis, and that under that Act she was not entitled to paid maternity leave since at the time of adoption, her child had been older than one year.
13.  On 10 December 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske). She argued that the administrative bodies had interpreted the relevant domestic law in a manner that rendered its provisions ineffective and illusory, since it was extremely rare for somebody to adopt a child under the age of one. In her view, the purpose of paid maternity leave was to provide the adoptive parent and the child with a period of adaptation. Paid maternity leave was accessible to biological mothers after childbirth, and to employees who adopted a child under the age of twelve. In denying her that opportunity, the administrative bodies had discriminated against her as an adoptive mother and a self-employed businesswoman.
14.  On 9 February 2011 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s constitutional complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.
6.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Koksovyy, the Rostov Region.
7.  The applicant worked for 15 years in the Extreme North of Russia. She instituted court proceedings against local pension authorities claiming recalculation of her pension.
8.  On 18 July 2003 the Kolskiy District Court of the Murmansk Region granted her claim. The court ordered the Pension Fund of the Kolskiy District of the Murmansk Region to recalculate her pension paid after 1 January 2002 by counting one year of her service in the Extreme North as one and a half years of working record and to pay her respective pension arrears for the period between 1 January 2002 and 18 July 2003. On 20 August 2003 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the Murmansk Regional Court and entered into force. It appears that the parties were not present at the appeal hearing.
9.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant received two writs of execution from the district court. By the accompanying letter, sent by registered mail, the court informed her that she had to submit the writs to the respondent authority. In case of the debtor’s refusal to enforce the judgment voluntarily, she was advised to forward it to the local bailiffs’ service, so that the enforcement proceedings could be opened.
10.  The applicant did not forward the writs either to the local bailiffs’ service or the respondent pension authority. The judgment remained unenforced.
11.  According to the Government, in the meantime the applicant’s old‑age pension had been recalculated and on 1 October 2003 further index‑linked.
12.  On 8 May 2008 and 27 July 2009 she applied to the Kolskiy District Court for a copy of the writs of execution. She argued without further details that, due to her lack of knowledge on the matter, she must have sent one of the writs to the Court and that she must have lost another one.
13.  By two separate decisions of 17 June 2008 and 2 October 2009 the district court rejected her respective applications, since she had not complied with the three-year time-limit for lodging a request for the copy of the writ. The court found no valid reason for extension of that time‑limit. The court further observed that in any event the applicant had already been in receipt of the old-age pension in the amount higher than that awarded by the judgment of 18 July 2003. If recalculated in line with that judgment, the amount of her pension would have been significantly reduced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Púchov.
5.  On 17 November 1998 the applicant’s sister initiated civil proceedings before the District Court in Trnava claiming that real property in issue belonged to the estate of her late parents. On 22 September 1999 the District Court dismissed the claim. On 23 November 2001 the Trnava Regional Court quashed the first-instance judgment.
6.  On 5 February 2003 the District Court allowed the applicant to join the proceedings as one of the plaintiffs.
7.  On 2 October 2007 the District Court stayed the proceedings. On 30 January 2009 the Regional Court quashed that decision in part and ordered the District Court to proceed with the case in respect of one of the defendants.
8.  On 16 April 2012 the applicant complained about the duration of the proceedings to the Constitutional Court. She claimed 3,000 euros (EUR) as just satisfaction and EUR 318.84 in reimbursement of her legal costs.
9.  On 3 October 2012 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had breached the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. There was no justification for the overall duration of the proceedings.
10.  The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction and legal costs. It noted that, between 28 May 2009 and 4 April 2012, it had delivered four judgments in which it had found a breach of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time in respect of nine other persons who were in the same position as the applicant in the above proceedings before the Trnava District Court (see paragraphs 14-15 below). In those four judgments, the Constitutional Court had granted the plaintiffs, who had been represented by the same lawyer as the applicant, the overall sum of EUR 18,000 as just satisfaction and EUR 1,609.85 for their legal costs.
11.  The Constitutional Court expressed the view that the legal representative of the plaintiffs had chosen to submit separate complaints in order to earn money. Had all the persons concerned submitted a single constitutional complaint, the overall just satisfaction award would have certainly not attained the amount of EUR 18,000, and the costs granted would have been lower than the above sum. As a result, the share in just satisfaction to which the applicant might be entitled as one of the multiple parties to the proceedings had been “granted to and consumed by” the precedent successful plaintiffs before the Constitutional Court.
12.  Subsequently the District Court took further evidence and heard the parties. A hearing scheduled for 6 March 2013 was adjourned to 15 July 2013 as the case had been assigned to a different judge. The documents submitted to the Court indicate that the proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicants were born in 1952 and 1954 respectively and live in Majur.
5.  The applicants were employed by “7 Juli”, a company based in Šabac (hereinafter – “the debtor”).
6.  On 13 November 2006 the applicant and the debtor concluded a settlement before the Šabac Municipal Court, according to which the debtor was ordered to pay the applicant certain sums in respect to salary arrears and costs of proceedings.
7.  On 29 December 2009 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court.
8.  On 31 December 2009 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
9.  On 11 December 2008 the applicant and the debtor concluded a settlement before the Šabac Municipal Court, according to which the debtor was ordered to pay the applicant certain sums in respect to salary arrears and pension and disability insurance contributions.
10.  On 7 July 2009 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court.
11.  On 9 July 2009 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
12.  On 21 July 2006 the applicant and the debtor concluded a settlement before the Šabac Municipal Court, according to which the debtor was ordered to pay the applicant certain sums in respect to salary arrears, pension and disability insurance contributions and costs of proceedings.
13.  On 7 July 2009 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above court decision with the Šabac Municipal Court.
14.  On 9 July 2009 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
15.  On 14 March 2007 the debtor was privatised.
16.  On 10 June 2008 the contract for the sale of the debtor was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations.
17.  Following the annulment of the debtor’s privatisation 70% of its shares were transferred to the State.
18.  As it would appear from media reports, in November 2009 the State sold its shares to a private company.
19.  On 14 April 2010 the Valjevo Commercial Court opened the preliminary insolvency proceedings against the debtor.
20.  On 1 December 2010 the Commercial Court terminated the insolvency proceedings against the debtor because the creditors and the debtor failed to advance the costs of the insolvency proceedings.
21.  In addition, the court ordered the transfer of the debtor’s property to the State.
22.  The decision became final on 14 April 2011.